The passion of the PACE (FOP debate part 2)

As I explained in Part 1, it works out much better for writing this (and I would think for reading) to split the accounting into two parts. And while most would have believed the main event would be the County Executive race – particularly because one candidate believes strongly in a countywide police force to supplant the four separate law enforcement jurisdictions we have now – it only served as an undercard to a verbal bout between State’s Attorney candidates.

To once again set the stage, the event was moderated by PACE Director Dr. Adam Hoffman and where I use the terms ‘law enforcement’ and ‘law enforcement officers’ they will be shortened to LE and LEOs, respectively.

Let’s begin with the County Executive race, giving first dibs to the challenger.

With decades of business experience to draw on, Joe Ollinger obviously looks at government from an “outside looking in” standpoint and eventually contrasted himself with his opponent, who to Joe has a different perspective in seeing things through the lense of years of being a bureaucrat.

Since this was a FOP function, Ollinger concentrated heavily on the first question and his proposal for a single, countywide police force. It would be “a lot more efficient,” argued Ollinger, who asked the crowd whether, if they were design things from scratch, they would have such a situation. It’s a situation which prevents communication and cooperation, added Joe. Later, in his closing statement, Ollinger observed that the only resistance to change seems to be coming from inside of government.

Ollinger also revealed that he was only interested in the office for a single, four-year term and believed that, “we shouldn’t have career politicians” doing the task. He also advocated a “pay-for-performance” plan and accountability for the 48% of our county budget devoted to the Board of Education.

Conversely, Rick Pollitt was “moved by President Kennedy’s call to citizenship” and had devoted his career to public service as a commitment to his community. Having said that, though, he pointed out that this was his first elected post.

Regarding the topic of crime, Pollitt was blunt: “I don’t have all the answers.” But he stressed that he’d worked for stronger partnerships and the best equipment and tools, including a push for the LEOPS pension. He also was firmly against combining the agencies because he believed the 30,000 Wicomico citizens who lived in the involved municipalities had no interest in doing so.

In contrast to Ollinger’s businesslike approach, Pollitt stated, “I understand providing services is not like running a business.” Rather than things always being about the bottom line, companies are attracted to the quality of life as the “greatest single economic development tool.” It was a theme he repeated in his closing statement, which occurred after his lone stumble – retreating briefly from the podium Pollitt and Hoffman collided, sending Rick to the floor.

As I noted in Part 1 there was the opportunity for the audience to ask questions, and one member asked Joe Ollinger how a new police agency would be paid for. Ollinger recalled that this subject has been around for at least 15 years, since he served on a countywide consolidated functions committee. The consolidation could have “funding as it is right now,” with the expected savings returned to the municipalities on a proportional basis to their original contributions.

This was the point where Rick Pollitt again responded that “no one wants to consolidate…it’s not gonna happen.” But he agreed there were other areas pointed out by the committee which still could be.

At last, we are left with the State’s Attorney race. This one I’m going to handle on more of a blow-by-blow basis because, of the five audience questions allowed, four were regarding issues in this race.

It didn’t take long for Matt Maciarello to start the verbal jousting – after going through his background and history of leadership, he then claimed, “I believe I’m the most qualified to be State’s Attorney.” Moving into crime-related specifics, he vowed to bring communication and collaboration to the office and to specifically target the criminals who affect us – he was “passionate” about keeping us safe.

This passion was a general theme of Matt’s, but he also took part of his opening remarks to accuse his opponent of being conflicted in the Thomas Leggs/Sarah Foxwell case.

Obviously, W. Seth Mitchell wasn’t going to let that stand too long. He briefly went over his “history of community service” and time in the State’s Attorney office before answering the question about why he should be elected over his opponent quite simply – “it’s called experience.” (He also pointed out the 17 year age difference between him and Maciarello.) To him, the best way to fight crime is through “thorough prosecution.”

So we had the battle lines drawn – Maciarello touting his passion and new ideas while Mitchell countered with the experience card.

After the other table had taken its turn speaking (as detailed in Part 1), wouldn’t you know the first question had to have come from a Mitchell supporter – “how many cases have you tried?”

Maciarello admitted he had tried but two jury trials and “several” bench trials, but countered that he knew his way around civil and crimimal litigation through his career and added that the State’s Attorney doesn’t try every single case himself. After bringing up the fact that longtime local attorney Arch McFadden had endorsed him, Matt countered the Mitchell contention by saying, “experience counts, but the right kind of experience counts too.” He again brought up his leadership roles and rapid career advancement. “If you want a leader, you’ll vote for me,” said Matt, but “if you want someone who’s stood in court” you could vote for Mitchell. Vowed Matt, “I’m the guy who’s going to reduce crime in Wicomico County.”

After Mitchell guessed his count of cases was in the thousands, he snidely remarked that, “Maybe I should vote for him…I guess Matt will do it all.” Seth continued, “if you want someone who’s tried cases, he concedes it’s me.” Mitchell also believe he was the one who the staff would look up to, and reiterated, “if you want experience in the courtroom, it is me.”

I then asked a question I’d raised before, regarding the fact that outgoing SA Davis Ruark also took over the job at a young age, his early 30’s.

Maciarello replied, “I’ve grown just as a candidate,” and that he was “taking the role and responsibility seriously.” He further believed, “a young mind is a flexible mind” and promised to embed prosecutors into LE and the community at large. Citing his energy and drive, he repeated that “I can do this job” and vowed again that, “I’m not going to sleep until crime is addressed.”

In reply, Mitchell said that “I think you can (grow in the office)” but stressed the relationships he’d built up and that “I will be a tough prosecutor.” He also said he’d learned a lot from Sam Vincent as his opponent over the years.

Mitchell also claimed that Davis Ruark had “4 to 6 years” of experience in the State Attorney’s office before he took over. While I can’t verify his claim, I can verify that Ruark passed the bar in 1981, about 6 years prior to his appointment as State’s Attorney. According to Matt’s website, he passed the bar in December 2003, so he’s working on seven years in the field.

Needless to say, someone asked how each would handle the Thomas Leggs/Sarah Foxwell case. This time Mitchell had the first shot.

And Mitchell made sure to say that, “I’ve made several calls to Davis Ruark” regarding the situation and, should he choose to keep Ruark on as an assistant in the case, “there’s nothing to stop me.” But Seth promised “I’ll take care of that case,” and stated the irony of one of Leggs’ defense attorneys (Arch McFadden) endorsing a man who would be in charge of putting his onetime client away.

Maciarello countered by calling this contrast a classic difference in leadership styles and said of Mitchell, “he does not understand attorney ethics.” It was “reckless” to put Mitchell on the Leggs case when he also defended the accused murderer in a case several years ago. Continuing his passionate appeal, Matt told the crowd, “I’m not letting my community go down the tubes.”

The final question addressed to the pair made reference to Davis Ruark’s support of 30 new police officers in Salisbury.

Maciarello expounded on his “proactivity” and wanted to look for grant money to help out. “I’m itching to get in there” and start solving problems like these.

Mitchell was more cautious in his approach. “We always need more police officers on the street,” he said, but getting to that point would require a “balancing act.” Playing off Matt’s analogy of being a football coach in his response, Mitchell chided him by saying you can’t be a football coach but you need to be one of the players.

As for the allegations leveled by Matt on attorney ethics, Seth was “very angry…he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.”

In the courtroom, it often comes down to the final argument; the point where the cases are summarized.

Maciarello told the FOP, “I want to make you the most effective crime fighter you can be.” He pointed out that he’d ran a positive campaign, but when it came to the top 6 gang members in Salisbury he warned, “I’m coming for you.”

“I’m going to exceed your expectations,” he continued, and “communication will be the culture of my office.” Summing up, Maciarello opined, “a State’s Attorney is a leader…my opponent has a myopic vision” of the office.

Mitchell based his close on the question, “if you were a criminal, who would you most fear? You have to demand the skills to do this job.” Recounting the experience and resume gap, he said that “you don’t start at the top.”

“Don’t go with a novice,” he concluded, “go with a professional.”

On the whole, it was obvious that Matt was passionate – almost to a fault. Yet he also seemed to have a better vision of the administrative side of the job – where the office could go and how to be a leader in it. Moreover, you always wonder how someone who was a defense attorney would fare on the other side, and could he be effective putting away those he may have defended in the past (including, but not limited to, Thomas Leggs.)

In any case, this donnybrook for State’s Attorney may have become the most contentious race in the area, one which seems to be a small-scale model of larger races like the Ehrlich-O’Malley or Harris-Kratovil contests. Potted plants need not apply.

Debate at FOP/PACE forum part 1 – the ‘potted plants’

Perhaps County Council candidate Bob Caldwell said it best in his closing remarks. Pointing to the side of the room where the duo running for State’s Attorney were sitting, he quipped, “(Over there) we have passion, and (on this side) potted plants.”

Indeed, most of the interest in the event came out of a contentious exchange between State’s Attorney candidates Matt Maciarello and W. Seth Mitchell. But a total of ten candidates had something to say during the event, while three others submitted written answers to questions presumably posed by the moderator, PACE director Dr. Adam Hoffman.

Since it works out well for post length to discuss the six County Council candidates who showed (plus the three who submitted written statements) as one post and save the County Executive and State’s Attorney for a later post, I’m going to do it that way – otherwise I’m looking at a 3,000-plus word post. So you get a tease.

The format was a little bit different than most, with the candidates not only presenting their opening statements but also answers to two questions regarding ideas to deal with the surge in crime we’ve had locally and why voters should choose you over your opponent, all in one four-minute monologue. Once these questions were answered, the format allowed for a few questions supplied by the audience and closing remarks.

Instead of working in strict chronological order, I’m going to summarize what each candidate said in order of their contest. One weakness of the format was that opponents in some Council races did not necessarily speak consecutively; this summary will correct that. For the record, all but one County Council candidate was represented – Dave Goslee, Jr. in District 1 did not attend or submit the questionnaire, while both District 2 contenders Mike Calpino and Stevie Prettyman along with at-large hopeful Matt Holloway submitted written remarks read by Dr. Hoffman.

So I’ll begin with County Council at-large posts and run in alphabetical order through them and on to the contested district seats.

David Cowall began by noting the turnout, “reinforces my faith in democracy.” He went on to point out that, in reality, crime statewide and even in Wicomico County has declined, at least statistically. And while he was “impressed” with the cooperation between law enforcement officers (hereafter referred to as LEOs with the phrase ‘law enforcement’ similarly abbreviated), we should focus on repeat offenders. Yet “we need to emphasize the professionalism” of LEOs – “we don’t need Barney Fife as our deputy sheriff.”

He also promoted his background as a former Naval officer, cancer specialist, and director of Coastal Hospice, which he termed “an excellent model for government.” To him, it’s more important to educate than incarcerate.

In his closing statement, he added a touch of humor by saying, “I want to bring back beards for elected officials.” But he stressed the ideas of civility, integrity, and hard work and concluded, “I’m not a particularly partisan person.”

Bob Culver stressed his business experience numerous times during his presentations, making the argument that the county needs a businesslike approach to governance. (As you’ll read in the next installment, he and Joe Ollinger were on similar pages.) To him, the agriculture industry needs to stay as our number one job producer, along with an emphasis on tourism.

One interesting idea brought up by Culver was the thought of having part-time officers as Ocean City does during the peak season. They may not necessarily carry weapons or do the same functions as a regular LEO but could be useful in certain situations. But his “business voice” came out in comparing himself with his opponents on the revenue cap – we need to “do more with less” and “quit whining.”

Government should provide “more bang for our buck,” concluded Bob, and “we need to be able to stand up on our own” without needing as much help from the state and federal governments.

Matt Holloway was not present to give an opening statement, but stressed business growth and more certain punishment of offenders along with having the best equipped and trained LEOs as possible in his answer to the crime question.

He stressed that he was superior to his opponents because he was, “young, motivated, (and) can bring fresh ideas” to the table. Matt also asked us to consider his agricultural background and “business sense.”

Returning to the political fray after a four-year absence for “medical reasons,” Ed Taylor spoke about his efforts to reduce recidivism during the period as a consultant. Apparently his ideas worked, as Taylor claimed he helped lower the recidivism rate by 80% through helping to provide jobs and housing. Yet since he “wanted to be part of the solution” for a county which needs to “survive hard times,” he’s back for another try.

“We need to reestablish community substations,” said Ed, as he also stressed community involvement and stiffer penalties as ideas to combat crime. Describing his opponents as “good people…I don’t think I’m better than any of them,” he based his argument on election on his “fourth degree” (after a bachelor’s and two master’s) – a “PhD in politics.”

In closing, Taylor again spoke of his experience to help bring the nation, state, and community “out of the depression we’re currently experiencing.” He also claimed, “I will always be on the side of the FOP…they deserve LEOPS” (a pension plan for LEOs and the subject of a long-standing collective bargaining dispute.)

Turning to the district races, Sheree Sample-Hughes had a walkover in her District 1 race as the lone candidate to show up or respond. So she stressed her “passion to serve” and lengthy background in public service as a county and state employee before taking her elected position four years ago. Her job, as she saw it, was to “connect people to resources.”

As far as crime, Sheree saw substations as an “information source” but we also needed to stress code enforcement and juvenile services. Continual LEO training and dialogue would be beneficial as well. In a second term she wanted to build a stronger relationship with the judicial system while maintaining the dialogue she had with her district through regular community meetings.

And while she expressed the thought in closing that, “tough times are yet ahead,” thus far she’s “served with passion, vision, and energy” and pointed to graffiti legislation as one of her key achievements on the County Council.

Neither candidate for District 2 could attend the event, and while Mike Calpino wrote that while he couldn’t properly answer a request for specific proposals “on what I know little about,” he did take the time to outline an answer to the comparison to his opponent via a lengthy plan for county expenditures.

On the other hand, Stevie Prettyman begged forgiveness for not being able to attend and similarly punted on the initial question by saying, “I’m not an LE professional.” But she has supported their budget requests in the past and was an advocate of the former DRILL Academy – “I was disappointed that it failed.” And while it’s not an issue the county could directly address, she supports legislation allowing concealed carry.

In stating her case for re-election, Stevie wrote that she’s “not new to politics…I’m independent and do my homework.” With debate on the county’s comprehensive plan and zoning code looming, she believed her experience in dealing with these in the past would serve her district well – as an example she cited the Cove Road controversy.

While District 3’s Gail Bartkovich was present, she got a pass in the event because she’s unopposed. The last Council race in contention was the District 4 race. (I did not see District 5 Council member Joe Holloway present; he’s also unopposed.)

Bob Caldwell is no stranger to legislative politics, as he served a term on Salisbury’s City Council (and ran for mayor in 2009 as well.) It was part of his “history of public service.” Regarding crime, a subject that “all communities wrestle with,” he reminded us that “LE is reactive” and our court commissioners had a role to play in making sure the bad guys aren’t released on their own recognizance.

But Bob’s sense of humor served to lighten the event. Referring to opponent David MacLeod as a “friend of long standing,” he stressed their biggest difference was a difference in philosophy. But he couldn’t resist a zinger or two at his friend, joshing MacLeod about referring to “a checkered past (and) being one step ahead of the law” in his opening statement. (MacLeod was speaking about his time as an addictions counselor.)

He stated his case by returning to his root philosophy of “common sense and fundamental fairness” and asked the voters to consider who they trusted to deal with the unexpected which was sure to come.

David MacLeod worked in a similar vein, cautioning Bob that “I hope you don’t mind waiting another four years” for elected office. In addressing the crime issue, David opined that the “leading cause of all these problems is drugs” and as an addictions counselor, “I reduce demand, (LE) takes care of the supply.”

As for why he’s the better candidate, MacLeod put it simply that, “I sorta know what’s coming over the hill.” He warned us to be careful of preconceived ideas, because, as he later noted in his closing, “this is going to be a little bit bumpy.” His closing argument was that we should “go with experience,” both on the County Council and in writing grant applications.

MacLeod said in his presentation that things were, “interesting to say the least.” Certainly that applied to the other half of the forum where County Executive hopeful Joe Ollinger tangled with his incumbent counterpart Rick Pollitt while Matt Maciarello and W. Seth Mitchell sparred in the main event. That’s the subject of part two upcoming.

Polling stories: O’Malley plus 8, Harris plus 3

Maybe the Washington Post poll dismissed by Bob Ehrlich as “out of whack” wasn’t so far off after all.

Yesterday Rasmussen came out with its latest poll on the governor’s race; a survey which gave Martin O’Malley a lead he hasn’t enjoyed in quite awhile. The 49%-41% margin can’t be good news for the Republican standardbearer who seems to be a victim of a backlash against the TEA Party by entrenched Democrats in one of the few places they still have political muscle.

(continued on my Examiner.com page…)

It’s time for accountability

You know, I didn’t begin the monoblogue Accountability Project for my health. When the cycle came back around to the point where our General Assembly came up for election I wanted the actual vote tallies to tell you what our legislators are REALLY voting to do. It’s especially apt when you get a full-color mailer telling you that “Jim Mathias is one of us.” (We’ve received two in the last week; the other said he was small business-friendly.)

Before I go on, allow me to say that Norm Conway and Jim Mathias are nice guys; I can talk to them and in most cases we agree to disagree. But there comes a time to be held in account for the votes they’ve taken and I’m not going to let them get away with talking conservative in the district but voting against its interests when they are in Annapolis.

For example, how many of you like the electric rates you pay? Well, the state mandates the utilities get a portion of their electricity from “renewable” sources or fines utilities who don’t comply. In the last four years both of these Delegates voted for legislation that would charge utilities up to 45 cents per kilowatt hour if they fell short of goals.

Speaking of goals, the pair also believed the hype about greenhouse gases and foolishly signed on to a job-killing measure to reduce greenhouse gases to 75% of 2006 levels by 2020. I’m sure they’ll say that there is an “out” within the law if the economic price is too high (which there is) but why would someone agree to this pig in a poke in the first place? By that same token, these two stuck it to utilities through mandates regarding energy conservation. (This is why companies like Delmarva Power have to push their programmable thermostats.)

And thanks to them our new cars now have to be compliant with the more expensive California emissions standards.

These two even played smoking Nazis when they both voted to ban indoor smoking. Mathias even voted for an amendment to ban tobacco statewide.

And is it small-business friendly to vote every chance you get to empower unions? Over the last four years this dynamic duo (along with Rudy Cane in many cases) have gifted Big Labor with fees from child care providers, gifts to the teachers union, a double dose of mandated breaks (each voted for one version of the bill), binding arbitration (regardless of the cost to local governments), and making those who wish to opt out of the union still pay union dues (as Delegate Conway did in committee.) If it were a vote to amend prevailing wage or beat back the repeal of ‘living wage’, Jim Mathias – yes, Mr. Business-Friendly himself – was there.

How about fans of paperwork? Anyone? Well, these esteemed Delegates put recordkeeping mandates on business, adopting federal mandates for an unemployment bailout after Rudy Cane and Norm Conway helped put the system in a bind by making part-time workers eligible. Even the half-hearted effort to help them this year comes with a number of strings and paperwork attached.

So when these Democrats try to pull the wool over your eyes and tell you they’re business-friendly, you may want to ask them why they voted for these measures. The next installment I’ll do over the next few days looks at just how fiscally responsible these local Democrats are (insert derisive snort here.)

In print: Kratovil’s misleading ad returns to the airwaves

Yesterday my letter happened to make it into the Daily Times. Glad they held it until Sunday.

**********

Well, it looks like Rep. Frank Kratovil is up to his old tricks again. Fresh off putting out a commercial that was termed “misleading” by factcheck.org, he puts out another one making the same claim — that Andy Harris wants a 23 percent sales tax increase.

But what Kratovil and his Washington insider friends cannily leave out is that working families would see their take-home pay dramatically increase, thanks to the return of money now confiscated by federal backup withholding. Frame the question instead as one of wanting a 20 to 30 percent raise, and people would be lined up around the block to shout “where do I sign up?”

I’m wondering if life inside the beltway has changed Kratovil to be that much less trustworthy, or whether he’s just a pawn in a desperate attempt by the party in power and their associated special interests to stay in control.

If Kratovil, Pelosi and their big-government friends are this willing to use deceit and parsing of terms in order to stay in office, it leads me to wonder what they’re so afraid of. Sending Harris to Congress would be a good, conservative reflection of our 1st District — a district which soundly rejected the policies of President Barack Obama even before he was put into office.

And since when is having more control over your own money a bad thing?

**********

It’s worth seeing the letter online because there’s some interesting reactions to it so far. I put in my two cents last evening.

Election Calendar: October 4-17, 2010

Monday, October 4 – District 37A Delegate candidate Dustin Mills will host a Small Business fundraiser from 5:30 – 7:30 p.m. at the Market Street Inn, 130 West Market Street in Salisbury. Cost is $30 per person or $50 per couple. For reservations e-mail electdustinmills2010@gmail.com.

Wednesday, October 6 – A candidate forum for County Council, County Executive, and State’s Attorney candidates will be sponsored by the Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 111, beginning at 6 p.m. It will be held at the Elks Lodge at 401 Churchill Avenue in Salisbury.

(continued on my Examiner.com page…)

While I’m at it, I decided not to put in two events which may draw politicians since there’s also a number of other festivals and gatherings over the next two weekends. But two major events are the Good Beer Festival next weekend and the Autumn Wine Festival the weekend of October 16-17, both at Pemberton Park outside Salisbury.

Comment on another’s post

Subtitled, why bury good writing and research in a comment?

First, let me set this up: Julie Brewington pondered on her site, Right Coast, why Martin O’Malley was leading Bob Ehrlich so widely (11 points) in a recent Washington Post poll. I weighed in with some statistics found on the Maryland Board of Elections website which may point out the poll was an outlier. This is my comment.

A couple points not necessarily considered:

In 2006 the primary voter split between Republicans and Democrats was 29-71 – over 70 percent of voters were Democrats.

In 2010 it was 37-63 R to D, in a state where the actual voter proportion as of the last report was 32-68. Bear in mind that in August 2006 the split was 35-65. (We’ve lost ground over the last four years for a variety of reasons.)

So in 2006 (a year that was terrible for Republicans) they underperformed at the primary ballot by 6 points, leading one to believe that R’s were less than enthused and D’s were excited.

This time we outperformed by 5 points, suggesting the tide has turned. The fact Garrett County, which is the most solidly Republican in the state, led the pack in turnout speaks volumes about the enthusiasm gap.

I think you’re citing a poll that will turn out to be an outlier because there’s not a good geographic breakdown and it depends a lot on people who may not show up at the polls anyway.

However, having said that, there was a trend (shown by Rasmussen) of Ehrlich pulling even to barely ahead all spring and into the summer, but the last two polls have placed MOM back in the lead.

**********

Julie does bring up a valid point regarding the Brian Murphy campaign. I have a number of thoughts on that 25% of the GOP vote and what will happen to it.

First of all, I sincerely doubt that many of those voters will vote for Martin O’Malley out of spite. While many were dismayed by the actions of the Maryland GOP in that race, I think that most realize the stakes are great in this election. The fraction of Republicans who vote for O’Malley out of spite probably will be fewer that the votes the Democrats found in Baltimore back in 1994 to push Parris Glendening over Ellen Sauerbrey.

A larger number will choose to leave the Governor’s race blank or vote for either Susan Gaztanaga, the Libertarian in the race, or Eric Knowles, who represents the Constitution Party. Ironically, this could help one or both secure ballot status for the next four years since they need 1 percent of the vote to qualify as a minor party. But in all likelihood those numbers will subtract out from the Ehrlich column.

Having said that, though, Murphy’s campaign may have served to expand the Republican universe enough that, even if a decent number of Murphy supporters go third party or skip, it will end up being a wash as compared to a scenario where Murphy withdrew and left the field to Ehrlich. Some proof of this lies in how the GOP did 11 points better compared to the expected average because we had a contested primary for Governor – in 2006 we did not.

Yet the vast majority of Murphy supporters accepted the primary results, and will move into the Ehrlich column next month. The $64,000 question is whether they’ll be advocates for Bob or just show up on Election Day, hold their noses, and touch the screen next to the Ehrlich name.

But that difference could also affect races down the ticket, particularly in areas (like the Shore) where the GOP has a shot of picking off some Democratic General Assembly seats. While they can’t expect the same sort of rout we may see on a national scale, there is a threshold of 10 House seats and five Senate seats that could turn the GOP from a cipher to a truly functioning minority party in the Maryland General Assembly.

AFP Maryland speaks out

There’s more fallout from “the Salisbury Chicken Incident.”

The Maryland chapter of Americans for Prosperity is demanding an apology from the Maryland Democratic Party after an employee and several other cohorts attempted to hijack a “November Is Coming” Bus Tour rally in Salisbury on Thursday where the voting record of Rep. Frank Kratovil was to be discussed. Chuck Cook, Field Organizer for the Maryland Democratic Party, burst into the restaurant, disrupted the peaceful rally, and harassed several attendees with video cameras. Video of the harassment and disruption of the event can be seen HERE (video courtesy of http://monoblogue.us/).

(continued on my Examiner.com page…)

I look at it this way – if our opponents want to look like fools, let them do so as much as possible!

Friday night videos episode 46

I wasn’t done yet, it was simply a dearth of decent video and some other plans taking up my Friday nights. Here you have the return of FNV after a two-week hiatus.

How about we start with this one? This could be a great movie, although it tells us what we already know.

Another thing we already know is that Sarah Palin remains popular, despite all the naysayers. That and she has her own political action committee.

And we also know that the stimulus is a boondoggle. It’s a little tougher to steal these political roadside signs than to take the neighbor’s O’Malley one – not that I condone the activity.

I may reuse this one in a few weeks.

I will be at the polling place on November 2nd with bells on. There could be a hurricane blowing and I’d be there.

Shifting gears, there’s a little surprise at the end of the Freedom Minute. But I’m curious why they used that particular hospital as a backdrop.I came across this a couple weeks back, and you know, it fits in with the mindset of many perfectly. Besides, the series of commercials from Progressive Insurance (which is owned by uberlefty Peter Lewis) really desperately needed to be made fun of.

It’s not quite Halloween, but here is some more scary stuff in a serious vein to close this edition. Whether you come down in favor of amnesty for illegals or not, this is a good case for closing the borders.

Since I crammed this one sort of full, I’ll skip the music this time. Maybe I’ll do a double dose on the next one.

Open for business

As many of you know, today not only marks the beginning the enforcement of several new laws (including the nanny state intrusion of hands-free cel phones) and the new federal fiscal year (for which we have no budget, as usual), but also the beginning of a new quarter and a new opportunity to lock in a prime piece of blogging real estate.

I look at advertising in a unique way – I would rather lock in an advertiser for the long-term (that term being three months, or a quarter) and allow them to set their own price – although I do set a floor price which is based on what I’m paid by a long-term advertiser. If there is a market, the advertisers determine it and right now there are two political ads I’m in the process of adding once they complete a simple process of getting me the graphics and paying for the space. I also give the opportunity for candidates to add an associated business of theirs gratis for the quarter as a thanks for advertising here.

Perhaps other websites do things differently, and some place political ads for free because they like the candidate. (I was the beneficiary of one of those sites.) But having released the genie from the bottle by accepting paid political ads I don’t think it’s either fair to those who pay to put up freebies or good for my long-term goals for this site.

However, business ads are a little different and in order to make this a year-round profitable enterprise I need more of them. Needless to say, there are sites which accept business advertising, with the “leading” one charging $100 per month. But is it the leading one? 

Let’s look at some of the local sites which contain advertising. One measure of readership, while perhaps flawed, is the Alexa rating. As of today, here are World and U.S. ranks of some local political and news websites.

  • monoblogue – world rank 395,413; U.S. rank 77,079
  • Salisbury News – world rank 339,963; U.S. rank 86,363
  • The Salisbury Grinch – world rank 802,682; U.S. rank 467,153
  • Delmarva Dealings – world rank 753,577; U.S. rank 237,163
  • The Daily Times – world rank 86,706; U.S. rank 19,194
  • WBOC-TV – world rank 110,922; U.S. rank 23,059
  • WMDT-TV – world rank 686,267; U.S. rank 203,838

Admittedly, the Grinch’s numbers may be skewed since he recently changed his URL. Normally it’s in the same neighborhood as Salisbury News.

But the interesting thing about Alexa is the site demographics it provides:

The fraction of visits to this site referred by search engines is roughly 2%. Visitors to the site spend approximately 44 seconds on each pageview and a total of 24 minutes on the site during each visit. Monoblogue.us’s visitors view an average of 14.0 unique pages per day. About 14% of visits to the site consist of only one pageview (i.e., are bounces).

In essence, what this says is people come to my site to read it and stick around long enough to get a message. Compare that to:

The time spent in a typical visit to (Salisbury News) is approximately two minutes, with two minutes spent on each pageview.

Is two minutes really long enough to read an ad? I’ll leave that to you to decide. And just so I’m not perceived as picking on Salisbury News, this applies to the WBOC website.

The time spent in a typical visit to Wboc.com is roughly four minutes, with 60 seconds spent on each pageview.

However, I can guarantee that the competition would rightly say that they get more repeat visitors in a day, and that may be true. Obviously they’re not keen on telling people how many people read their site daily, but do you know what? I have nothing to hide. See if you can spot a trend here among the SiteMeter and StatCounter numbers I use for the last quarter.

  • Week of July 5: Site Meter (SM) 1090, Stat Counter (SC) 1169
  • Week of July 12: SM 960, SC 1133
  • Week of July 19: SM 1132, SC 1223
  • Week of July 26: SM 1109, SC 1188
  • Week of August 2: SM 1153, SC 1168
  • Week of August 9: SM 1141, SC 1214
  • Week of August 16: SM 1108, SC 1152
  • Week of August 23: SM 1302, SC 1351
  • Week of August 30: SM 1221, SC 1431
  • Week of September 6: SM 1664, SC 1540
  • Week of September 13: SM 1677, SC 2030
  • Week of September 20: SM 1237, SC1358

My peak week, naturally for a politically-based website, was the week of the election. Guess what we have again in a month?

So there are the facts which I have to present. I have an uncle who was in business for himself for nearly 30 years and he occasionally advises me on how I conduct this website as a business – I’m not sure he’d appreciate my blunt honesty in revealing these “trade secrets” but that’s how I deal with people.

I think this is a great place to advertise for certain businesses:

  • restaurants (since much of my clientele reads this from work and no one I know of blocks this site)
  • professional services (a large percentage of clients are professionals with college education)
  • sports-related (because I do Shorebird of the Week in the summer)
  • politically-related (this goes without saying)

By having this information, I believe you as prospective clients can judge for yourself whether this would be an effective tool. If you believe it will be, the actual details of how I do advertising are here. Bear in mind that the higher the bid, the better the placement.

I know I have a lot of supporters out there, and many of them own businesses. We can support each other in this endeavor called life, so give this a shot! I look forward to doing business with you. My e-mail address is ttownjotes (at) yahoo.com.